Is it time for a new NDP Leader in Manitoba?

In a strange twist, incoming MB NDP prez Ovide Mercredi was named as an advisor to a BC company, about 3 months ago, that intends to ship Albertan bitumen from the AB oil sands, either by rail or pipeline, to BC's north west coast. And refine it there for export. Both the BC NDP and fed NDP, along with most BC FNs oppose same. Strange poli world we live in.

It's not just strange, it's decidedly disturbing. Mercredi is also on the board of "Canadians for a New Partnership" a vague new national organization with a vague, feel-good mission statement and which has been described as being "...stacked with native elites and colonial politicians who have ties to destructive industry."

Pretty much the worst possible result. A bare endorsement of the status quo with 200 (presumably Ashton delegates) choosing not to cast a second ballot (ie couldn't stomach voting for either candidate). All the divisions and dirty laundry aired for the public to see, and the same people in charge. Selinger has somehow managed to alienate many constituency rank-and-file (see constituency delegate counts) as well as many in the party brass/brain trust (eg Kostyra, Balagus).

'Affiliate' (i.e. union) votes likely put Selinger over the top. One wonders what the final result would have been with OMOV.

Leaving aside who deserved the win, this, IMO, is the worst possible outcome - a very narrow victory by the incumbent who has all the natural advantages, but also all the baggage, associated with power and must now convince Manitoba voters that he deserves their support when his own party is so divided about him. Even a narrow victory by an opponent would not be as troublesome because that person could argue they had to overcome all the obstacles associated with incumbency and could work on uniting the party before going to the public. Its simply much harder for an incumbent to do this no matter who he/she is. For example, if Campbell had stayed in power in BC, rather than retire, the BC Liberals could not have won the last election, even though Christy Clark only won the party leadership with 51%.

Once again, this is not an attack on Selinger, because I don't know enough about Manitoba politics to do that, but an observation of political reality.

What do you see in her? She has conducted herself dishonestly throughout this campaign. She was perfectly fine to go along with Selinger's PST increase until it was obvious it would cost the party support, and the best policy response she can come up with is a PST rebate straight out of the policy playbook of the Liberals and Conservatives. Her attacks on Steve Ashton on the referendum I also find apalling, since it was the PST increase that allowed her to launch her bid and yet she won't give us the chance to have our say on it.

I figured all Ashton needed to do was get to the second ballot to clinch it (because he would be everyone' second choice) but I see it wasn't meant to be. I can't imagine that this result will be the end of things, though. Bridges haven't just been burned they've been dynamited. Do Selinger's critics even stay in caucus now?

I followed the convention and also tweeter feed of members, media and so on. The media said that Selinger's endorser gave the best speech and that rated Selinger's speech the best in hitting highlights and overall delivery.

What's interesting correlation is that the people running for president and endorsed by the various candidates ended up reinforcing the outcome for NDP leader for 1 2 3.

Balagus is obviously a fantastic provincial campaign manager. It doesn't necessarily mean that those same skills are best suited in running the day to day government administration in terms of chief of staff. They are just very different skill sets.

I hope Balagus is campaign leader again as obviously he understands Manitoba and how to run successful campaigns.

As for the 200 people who did not vote, one can't assume that they didn't like the other two choices. It could have been for some, that it didn't matter, that they would be okay with either. Unless one did exist interviews for them one can not infer anything. The fact is that they did not vote.

Finally there was people who were suppose to be at convention but did not show up. Again one can't infer what that means. The outcome could have been different or the same if all those registered to vote cast a ballot the first and 2nd time.

Why bother even having a leadership race if you are not going to abide by the results. I was supporting someone else but a win is a win, and it is now up MB NDPers to unify behind the leader. Sour grapes now will only help the opposition.

Oswald's supporters need to clue up and support the reafirmed leader. If he's that bad he'll be gone right after the next election.

But definitively one person one vote is the democratic approach and are we not Democrats?

That needs to be changed sooner rather than later.

Tome to get our act together now as we need to show leadership to the citizens of Manitoba.

Selinger scraped through...but he has guaranteed an overwhelming NDP defeat in the next provincial election by accepting such a pathetically narrow victory. Selinger should have done the decent thing amd withdrawn from the race when he didn't win it overwhelmingly on the first ballot.

Why would he even want to stay on now, with every voter in Manitoba now fully aware that almost half the delegates at his own party convention want him gone? And what possible case can anyone make for even bothering to campaign or vote for the Manitoba NDP now that Selinger has hung on and will take this as a mandate to keep his party a conviction-free dead zone?

And why the hell would union block votes go to save a provincial NDP leader who refused to pass an anti-scab law?

Selinger will now go down in Manitoba political history as the man who destroyed the Manitoba NDP, andwho did so at the worst possible moment for the federal party's chances in Manitoba in 2015. We can now assume the federal NDP will hold Niki Ashton's seat and lose in every other federal riding.

Nice work, Greg Selinger-you arrogant, egotistical jerk. Way to become the Darrell Dexter of the Prairies. Wonder how much the 1% paid you to do this?

Selinger will now go down in Manitoba political history as the man who destroyed the Manitoba NDP, andwho did so at the worst possible moment for the federal party's chances in Manitoba in 2015. We can now assume the federal NDP will hold Niki Ashton's seat and lose in every other federal riding.

Is there a chance any of the caucus rebels will now seek a federal nomination? They can try to kiss and make up with Selinger but I can't imagine that their other short term prospects look great right now.

I agree that this result isn't good for the party. A sitting premier only receiving 36% support on the first ballot and then narrowly winning on the second with 51% doesn't look great at all. It'll be an interesting year in Manitoba politics.

Selinger scraped through...but he has guaranteed an overwhelming NDP defeat in the next provincial election by accepting such a pathetically narrow victory. Selinger should have done the decent thing amd withdrawn from the race when he didn't win it overwhelmingly on the first ballot.

Why would he even want to stay on now, with every voter in Manitoba now fully aware that almost half the delegates at his own party convention want him gone? And what possible case can anyone make for even bothering to campaign or vote for the Manitoba NDP now that Selinger has hung on and will take this as a mandate to keep his party a conviction-free dead zone?

And why the hell would union block votes go to save a provincial NDP leader who refused to pass an anti-scab law?

Selinger will now go down in Manitoba political history as the man who destroyed the Manitoba NDP, andwho did so at the worst possible moment for the federal party's chances in Manitoba in 2015. We can now assume the federal NDP will hold Niki Ashton's seat and lose in every other federal riding.

Nice work, Greg Selinger-you arrogant, egotistical jerk. Way to become the Darrell Dexter of the Prairies. Wonder how much the 1% paid you to do this?

You make 2 good points.

1. Selinger probably should have stepped down. Most leaders don't stay on with so little support from their own party. They usually leave when they realize the party is divided and when they don't have a large majority of people who want them to continue as leader.

In 1990, PM Margaret Thatcher stepped down after she failed to win a 1st ballot victory in the PC leadership, even though she was ahead, because she could see what was happening.

And in Canada, Joe Clark called for a leadership convention in 1983 when he received 66% of the vote at a leadership review. It's amazing that Selinger thinks that winning by 33 votes and getting only 51% is an acceptable mandate.

2. The unpopularity of the provincial Selinger government looks like it is harming the Federal NDP. The Mulcair NDP has been polling in 3rd place in Manitoba over the past year. I suspect Mulcair was privately hoping that Selinger would be replaced so that the Federal NDP could get a lift in Manitoba.

Selinger hanging on is probably good news for Harper & Trudeau in Manitoba. This makes it more difficult for the NDP to win back Elmwood-Transcona & Winnipeg North, or to pick up any new seats. Btw, according to Eric Grenier's seat model, Churchill is more at risk than Winnipeg Centre.

It seems that in almost every one of your posts you quote Eric Grenier as if he is so kind of political guru as opposed to being part of the mainstream press with their group of manipulating polls, pollsters, and aggregators. I ask you again why are you even here?

Pretty much the worst possible result. A bare endorsement of the status quo with 200 (presumably Ashton delegates) choosing not to cast a second ballot (ie couldn't stomach voting for either candidate). All the divisions and dirty laundry aired for the public to see, and the same people in charge. Selinger has somehow managed to alienate many constituency rank-and-file (see constituency delegate counts) as well as many in the party brass/brain trust (eg Kostyra, Balagus).

jerrym wrote:

Leaving aside who deserved the win, this, IMO, is the worst possible outcome - a very narrow victory by the incumbent who has all the natural advantages, but also all the baggage, associated with power and must now convince Manitoba voters that he deserves their support when his own party is so divided about him. Even a narrow victory by an opponent would not be as troublesome because that person could argue they had to overcome all the obstacles associated with incumbency and could work on uniting the party before going to the public. Its simply much harder for an incumbent to do this no matter who he/she is. For example, if Campbell had stayed in power in BC, rather than retire, the BC Liberals could not have won the last election, even though Christy Clark only won the party leadership with 51%.

For most political leaders, a razor-thin victory of 50 per cent-plus-one is not enough to survive. To put it in context, in November 2005 Progressive Conservative party leader Stuart Murray resigned after only receiving the support of 55 per cent of the delegates to that party's annual convention. More famously, former federal PC leader Joe Clark triggered a leadership race when just 66.5 per cent of party members confirmed his leadership in 1981.

Selinger's narrow 33-vote win on the second ballot was about as narrow and as pyrrhic as victories can possibly be. While Selinger and his caucus supporters were grinning ear to ear on stage Sunday, the ones who were probably beaming the most were the Brian Pallister-led Progressive Conservatives and Rana Bokhari-led Liberals. With the NDP 22 points behind the PCs in the last Probe Research Inc. poll, the Tories will be particularly confident about their chances in the next election. While anything can happen between now and election day, they will be feeling especially self-assured about facing a battered premier who will be busy looking over his shoulder for a long time to come, rather than having to face a wild card in Ashton or Oswald.

The only way leadership changes happen with the Manitoba NDP is if the leader voluntarily steps down, it's impossible to force out a recalcitrant leader. Something is wrong when it's harder for your party to remove a stubborn leader than the Alberta PCs.

robbie_dee wrote:

I can't imagine that this result will be the end of things, though. Bridges haven't just been burned they've been dynamited. Do Selinger's critics even stay in caucus now?

I think the more relevant question is whether or not they run in the next election. In particular, I think Ashton may very well hang up his hat. He's twice failed to become Premier, and he's smart enough to know that the next election will likely return to opposition, and he's 57. What more is there for him?

ghoris wrote:

'Affiliate' (i.e. union) votes likely put Selinger over the top. One wonders what the final result would have been with OMOV.

[url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/Provincial-NDP-voting-system-chan... Manitoba Federation of Labour blocked an attempt to go back to OMOV,[/url] which is a shame because the delegated system produced so many problems, from whether or not northern delegates could vote remotely to [url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/another-delegate-controversy-2953... of political interference in Swan River and worries about some votes not counting because they arrived late.[/url] The MFL was also [url=http://enmasse.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6989]behind the switch away from OMOV[/url]. I do take your point about the delegate system influencing the result, and it's problematic when rules around do we count these delegates or how many delegates do those unions get can get a different result. There are also conspiracy theories that the push away from OMOV was to specifically block Ashton. And not that I agree with it, but I can see where the sentiment that [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-pc-leader-accuses-seling..."union bosses" use their members dues for political advantage for themselves[/url] comes from. The political strategy of organized labour in this province begins and ends with keeping the NDP elected, and it's not clear to anybody outside of the labour movement what it represents other than special prividges for union members.

Let me give you one example. The NDP government passed legislation allowing municipalities to force developers to build a certain percentage of affordable housing, if the municipalities chose. In Brandon, the labour council there was unable to convince council to go along with this idea, even though an NDP-backed mayor supported that initiative at the time.

Ken Burch wrote:

Nice work, Greg Selinger-you arrogant, egotistical jerk. Way to become the Darrell Dexter of the Prairies. Wonder how much the 1% paid you to do this?

It's not Greg Selinger, the structural problems with the party go back. As I said upthread, it's impossible to remove a recalcitrant leader, and internal dissent within the NDP is barely tolerated at the best of times. Any internal criticism is dismissed and ignored, and for a long time I've felt that the role of a Manitoba NDP member is to: a) donate free labour at election time and money the rest of the year, and b) cheer on Our Glorious Leader. It's impossible to give feedback about something the NDP did other than "the NDP and its leaders are all the greatest thing since sliced bread." Even during Judy's camapign, there was a sense that you couldn't really give any constructive criticism or give any feedback about what things you could do differently. Worse yet, other provincial sections and the federal party have learned the wrong lessons from the success in Manitoba. (They recently also touted the success of the Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan wings, I wonder why we don't hear about that any more.)

And just...wow, how stupid can the NDP be in re-electing Selinger? How do Selinger's supporters imagine him being able to win re-election with the PCs running clips of him saying that he would not raise sales taxes? What happens to the provincial NDP doesn't concern me at this point, but I'm really worred about what us regular Manitobans are going to have to endure at the hands of Premier Brian Pallister.

Gary Doer has been singularly unsuccessful in convincing Obama to support Keystone. Is there any possibility Harper will task Doer with organizing a palace coup in the Manitoba NDP leadership, winning back the premiership, and using that position to lobby for Keystone? Just asking.

Gary Doer has been singularly unsuccessful in convincing Obama to support Keystone. Is there any possibility Harper will task Doer with organizing a palace coup in the Manitoba NDP leadership, winning back the premiership, and using that position to lobby for Keystone? Just asking.

Sure, because Harper could not get a lick of help from the Manitoba PC party. He can only count on Gary Doer to find support for the Keystone pipeline...

I enjoy a conspiracy theory as much as the next paranoid schizophrenic, but some secret plots just aren't worth it. The idea of Harper taking some action to keep any New Democrat government in power when the PC alternative would take an identical position on Keystone makes no sense.

It's not Greg Selinger, the structural problems with the party go back. As I said upthread, it's impossible to remove a recalcitrant leader, and internal dissent within the NDP is barely tolerated at the best of times. Any internal criticism is dismissed and ignored, and for a long time I've felt that the role of a Manitoba NDP member is to: a) donate free labour at election time and money the rest of the year, and b) cheer on Our Glorious Leader. It's impossible to give feedback about something the NDP did other than "the NDP and its leaders are all the greatest thing since sliced bread." Even during Judy's camapign, there was a sense that you couldn't really give any constructive criticism or give any feedback about what things you could do differently. Worse yet, other provincial sections and the federal party have learned the wrong lessons from the success in Manitoba. (They recently also touted the success of the Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan wings, I wonder why we don't hear about that any more.)

Isn't that how every party operates and has always operated once in government?

The only way leadership changes happen with the Manitoba NDP is if the leader voluntarily steps down, it's impossible to force out a recalcitrant leader. Something is wrong when it's harder for your party to remove a stubborn leader than the Alberta PCs.

Well, deep-sixing unpopular leaders who may be electoral liabilities is kind of the Alberta PCs' thing. The old saying "Alberta doesn't chnage during elections, it changes at PC conventions."

The PCs' are a political vechicle for Alberta's established intrests - that's it. Its not surprising that the party quickly dumps its leader when that person may be a threat to those intrests.

Any idea why the unions were so supportive of Selinger? I though unions' approach to NDP politics was all about making the party as electable as possible. Why would they back Selinger? Is the oppositon to Oswald and the rest of the "Gang of 5" over their "breaking of solidarity" that strong?

One of reasons the right win so many elections is they try as much as possible to keep their internal squabbles out of the limelight, whereas the left it seems can't wait to share their frustrations with anyone who will listen to them including the enemy, the mainstream press, who when they hear the disgruntled left's nonsense, often think they have died and gone to heaven. By far the easiest thing in the world to do is criticize, as we readily see here at rabble.

Gary Doer has been singularly unsuccessful in convincing Obama to support Keystone. Is there any possibility Harper will task Doer with organizing a palace coup in the Manitoba NDP leadership, winning back the premiership, and using that position to lobby for Keystone? Just asking.

That's quite a creative storyline for a political movie, there.

As much as I dislike Gary Doer for abandoning his principles and deciding to become a mouthpiece for Stephen Harper, it's not Doer's fault that Harper has such a frosty relationship with Obama now.

And isn't it too late to organize another coup in the Manitoba NDP? They've already had the leadership convention and Selinger won. I assume there isn't one required for another 2 years?

Well, deep-sixing unpopular leaders who may be electoral liabilities is kind of the Alberta PCs' thing.

And the BC NDP's thing as well. After BC Lib premier Campbell stepped down back in late 2010 with immense pressure internally due to the HST fiasco, within weeks the knives were also out for BC NDP leader Carole James as well. Many in the BC NDP believed that with Campbell gone and James still at the helm that the BC NDP would lose the following election.

The anti-James faction and internal BC NDP friction was played out all over the media and was, in fact, the top news story every single day. Most pathetic thing that I ever saw politically here in BC. Ever. And James was just the opposition leader.

Manitoba's Commissioner of Elections has launched an investigation into whether NDP leadership campaigns violated elections laws by paying for some of the delegates to attend the convention that saw Greg Selinger retain his job as the party's leader and premier of the province.

...

Spokespeople from all three of the campaigns told CBC they were paying the fees for some members who might otherwise not be able to attend the convention, such as those from the north, as well as for young people and seniors on fixed incomes.

Any idea why the unions were so supportive of Selinger? I though unions' approach to NDP politics was all about making the party as electable as possible. Why would they back Selinger? Is the oppositon to Oswald and the rest of the "Gang of 5" over their "breaking of solidarity" that strong?

What I heard from some labour people is that they were upset the Gang of Five aired the dirty laundry in public acted without consulting the membership. That was largely the reason I ended up supporting Selinger myself.

I spoke to one member of the Executive who said he would have much preferred to deal with this issue in the Executive, but that didn't happen. If the cabinet and/or caucus was having problems with Greg, they should have discussed this with the Executive or Provincial Council. Then, if Greg was indeed a problem and continued to be intransigent, a move against him would have had more legitimacy.

My whole issue with this disaster was that I feel there is a process that should have been followed, and it wasn't.

My whole issue with this disaster was that I feel there is a process that should have been followed, and it wasn't.

Can someone please tell me exactly what process was in place that should have been followed? The only leader who has departed since the NDP was elected was Gary Doer, and he left on his own. What about leaders who don't want to go? Most other parties allow members to vote yes/no to a leadership review at the convention, but in the Manitoba NDP, someone has to step forward from the floor, which as you can imagine gives a huge advantage to the incumbent. Even the way the executive handled this most recent case was to try and cut off a challenge to Selinger's leadership.

So I get that the Gang of 5 was dishonest and underhanded in its approach. But again, my question to the people who supported Selinger is: what formal processes exist within the Manitoba NDP to force a leadership review for a leader who is truly recalcitrant and intransigent? I'm not asking what they should or should not have said to the Executive or the Provincial Council or anyone else, I want to know what the process is.

I can only tell you why Carole James lost the leadership in BC. She refused to subject herself to a leadership review which was a big mistake on her part and cost her her job as Leader of the BC NDP. The Executive or Provincial Council should have forced it on her but they abdicated their responsibilities as well.

Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger is denying allegations of a backroom deal with the province's firefighters ahead of the weekend leadership vote he won to remain in office.

Manitoba NDP sources say the United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg union was given assurances by Manitoba Health Minister Sharon Blady, a Selinger loyalist, that, in exchange for their support, an application by paramedics to self-regulate their profession would never see the light of day.

The union representing Manitoba paramedics is concerned by the allegations, releasing a statement asking for clarification on the issue and saying that "reports from the recent campaign have raised questions about the government's intentions."

"I have been hearing concerns from paramedics that commitments may have been made regarding self-regulation of their profession,” a letter written to Selinger by Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union President Michelle Gawronsky stated.

Someone needs to talk some sense to him, so he brings the dissidents back in.

He's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't. Bringing the dissidents back right away sends the message that backstabbing behaviour is acceptable, but not bringing them back sends the message that he is not receptive to ideas and concerns other than his own.

Howard and Swan have said they will run for re-election in 2016 (if the NDP endorses them). I can see Swan running as an independant or Liberal - Howard, not so much. She has said she is a New Democrat and will only run as one.

Struthers, on the other hand, has said he is discussing his future with his family as he does before every election. He certainly won't bolt to another party. If he doesn't run again, he will retire. If Struthers call it quits, the NDP can kiss Dauphin goodbye in 2016.

He said the allegations cast doubt over the fairness of the process and questioned the legitimacy of Selinger’s re-election as leader.

"An unfair outcome means an illegitimate premier," Pallister wrote.

"I encourage you to immediately conduct a full and transparent review of the leadership process just concluded by your party and take any and all actions necessary to restore the trust of your own members and all Manitobans," he said to Mercredi.

The most influential people around Selinger now are academics such as so-called radical pragmatist John Loxley, anti-poverty activists and wonks associated with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. They are mostly old white men, class warriors hopelessly stuck in the past. They are "yesterday's NDP" (although many of them have not always been members of the party and some spent the last 15 years on the sidelines as critics, marginalized by Doer's popularity and success). Now they have the NDP they always wanted: ideologically pure, beholden to unions, Stalinist in tendency.

Yeah, buddy, you're totally helping.

Also, now that the Manitoba NDP is ideologically pure and Stalinist, can we have anti-scab legislation, free tuition, and soviets?

Did he miss the many anti-poverty pledges that Oswald made in her campaign?

The most influential people around Selinger now are academics such as so-called radical pragmatist John Loxley, anti-poverty activists and wonks associated with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. They are mostly old white men, class warriors hopelessly stuck in the past. They are "yesterday's NDP" (although many of them have not always been members of the party and some spent the last 15 years on the sidelines as critics, marginalized by Doer's popularity and success). Now they have the NDP they always wanted: ideologically pure, beholden to unions, Stalinist in tendency.

Yeah, buddy, you're totally helping.

Also, now that the Manitoba NDP is ideologically pure and Stalinist, can we have anti-scab legislation, free tuition, and soviets?

The most influential people around Selinger now are academics such as so-called radical pragmatist John Loxley, anti-poverty activists and wonks associated with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. They are mostly old white men, class warriors hopelessly stuck in the past. They are "yesterday's NDP" (although many of them have not always been members of the party and some spent the last 15 years on the sidelines as critics, marginalized by Doer's popularity and success). Now they have the NDP they always wanted: ideologically pure, beholden to unions, Stalinist in tendency.

Yeah, buddy, you're totally helping.

Also, now that the Manitoba NDP is ideologically pure and Stalinist, can we have anti-scab legislation, free tuition, and soviets?

The guy's argument here is beyond confused. He blasts the Manitoba NDP as "Third Way"(a fair critique)and, at the same time, attacks Selinger's inner circle as "anti-poverty activists" and "class warriors"(neither of which seems credible, given Seligman's essentially neoliberal progam). Sounds as if he wants the NDP to be further left and further right at the same time.